with this inquiry, for the proof required by the apostle depends upon the following clause, it is the Gentiles upon whom God's name is called. If, then, at that time, some of the Gentiles, upon whom God's name is called, shall seek after the Lord, it is evident that before that time God's name will be called upon some of the Gentiles, and therefore that God will have visited "the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." He then concludes by breaking out into admiration of how God's foreknowledge is in accordance with the contingency of events, and how he works all things after the counsel of his will through men, who are still left to their own free will and responsibility; "known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world." Here, then, we get all the points for which we have been contending: the calling of the Gentiles, although provided for from the beginning of the world, was only brought to light after the Jews as a nation had rejected Christ, and the proof that it was predicted in the prophets is by inference and implication.

Prophecies of the two advents grouped together.

Mede.

This passage also appears to me very important, in giving us the order and character of the dispensations. The feature of this dispensation is God's visiting the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. The next will witness the re-establishment of the house of David.

This view of Christ's second coming also elucidates the manner in which the prophecies relating to the two advents of Messiah are grouped. The pious and profoundly learned Joseph Mede, as he was styled, says, that "The old prophets, for the most part, speak of the coming of Christ indefinitely, and, in general, without that distinction of first and second coming, which the Gospel out of Daniel hath more clearly taught us. And so, consequently, they spake of the things to be at Christ's coming indefinitely and altogether; which we, who are now more fully informed, by the revelation of the Gospel, of a two-fold coming, must apply each of them to its proper time -those things which befit the state of his first coming unto it, and such as befit the

state of his second coming unto the second; and what befits both alike may be applied unto both." Now, although this statement be in substance according to the truth, yet I never felt that it could be satisfactorily urged, either to the conviction of a Jew, who denied Jesus to be the Christ, or of a Christian, who did not believe his personal reign upon earth: but what I have already observed, respecting the quotations relative to the times of the Gentiles, equally holds good with those concerning the two advents of Christ. If there was a possibility of an entrance into the inheritance immediately after the ascension of Christ, it clearly would have been unsuitable that those prophecies, given to support the hopes of the faithful in the glories of Messiah's reign, should mention that intervening time of darkness and trouble, whose future existence was only contingent upon the unbelief of the nation. I need only mention Isaiah, lxi. compared with Luke, iv. 16-19, and Zechariah, ix. 9, to the end, with

John, xii. 14, 15, to illustrate how closely the two advents are connected and foreshortened by the prophetic eye, when gazing into the long perspective of futurity. But now that we stand between the two advents, in the very times of the Gentiles, occasioned by the unbelief of the Jews, we can distinctly discriminate and separate the events of each advent under their proper head. The last observation of Mede requires a more express inquiry. He says, that "such predictions of things as befit the state of both advents alike may be applied unto both." Whether this be applicable to more than one case or not, I do not know; but I apprehend that it is true, to a certain extent, with respect to those events which are to prepare the way of the Lord, or, in plain words, the ministry which is to urge men to that state of mind, upon which Christ's coming is contingent. We will therefore examine that which is said respecting the coming of Elias; for the prophecy of Malachi is one of the passages

which Mede expressly observes must refer to the second, as well as to the first coming of Christ.

of Elias.

After the transfiguration, which I con- The coming sidered at some length in the former part of this work, it is said, "As they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead; and they took notice of that expression, debating among themselves what the rising from the dead should mean.' After all that our Lord had said, the disciples could not understand, literally, the saying concerning his sufferings.

"And Matt. xvii.

his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes, that Elias must first come?" Gill quotes some passages from the Jewish writings, to shew that this was the belief of the scribes; for instance, "Before the coming of the Son of David, Elias will come, to bring the good news of it." And they say that even Messiah "shall not know himself, nor have any power, till Elias comes and anoints him, and makes him known to

10.